Booker says Israeli walls in Palestine are different from walls in America

At last week’s Netroots Nation conference, the annual gathering for progressive activists, New Jersey Senator Cory Booker found himself red-faced after accidentally posing in a photo with a sign reading “From Palestine to Mexico: All the Walls Have Got to Go”. The sign, given to him by a Palestinian rights activist attending the conference, accurately compares the construction of a militarized border wall between the United States and Mexico on land physically confiscated from Mexico to Israel’s construction of border walls, including the illegal West Bank barrier, built on land stolen from Palestinians.

Like so many other Establishment Democrats, however, Cory Booker sought to square support for immigrants in America against Trump with unfettered support for racism and nativism by Israel. Booker’s aide quickly dismissed the photo, saying Booker hadn’t properly read the sign. More interestingly, however, the aide added: “[Booker] hopes for a day when there will be no need for security barriers in the State of Israel, but while active terrorist organizations threaten the safety of the people living in Israel, security barriers are unfortunate but necessary to protect human lives.”

Two people who have explicitly agreed with the comparison between American walls and Israeli walls are none other than US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. That the Prime Minister of the Israeli government itself has explicitly agreed with the comparison that Booker sought to disavow should settle any ambiguity about the comparison.

President Trump is right. I built a wall along Israel's southern border. It stopped all illegal immigration. Great success. Great idea 🇮🇱🇺🇸

The astounding hypocrisy has been noted — and not just by progressives. Conservative writers like Scott Morefield, a regular contributor to nativist and pro-Israel websites like Breitbart News, asks why Cory Booker’s security rationale for walls in Palestine doesn’t also apply to the United States: “In other words, [border] security for me, but not for thee…Ironically, Booker cites the presence of ‘active terrorist organizations’ that threaten the safety of the Israeli people as a reason for their border wall, conveniently forgetting that MS-13 and, well, pretty much any criminal or terrorist group that wishes to can currently waltz across the US – Mexico border at will.”

Morefield’s exaggerated description of threats to Americans and Israelis is unhinged. But it is entirely reasonable to ask why those who use fear-mongering about terrorism to justify Israeli walls would suddenly disagree when right-wing authors in America list threats against Americans — from MS-13 to ISIS sleeper cells to creeping Sharia law — to justify building a wall here. Why don’t Americans deserve the same protection from exaggerated or imaginary threats that Israelis enjoy?

One explanation for Booker’s hypocrisy is that he just happens to like Israel too much. Another could simply be the influence of donor money. Maybe the issue is that he has more Latin-American immigrants in his district than he does Palestinians, Eritreans, or Sudanese.

But I think the explanation is simpler: Democrats like Cory Booker have never cared about protecting people from the archaic violence of imposed colonial borders, and like the Democratic Establishment, his support for migrants in North America, as strident as it may sometimes appear, is feigned.

Given the opportunity to address the question of border violence in another context that carries less domestic political cost, Booker can let his true feelings out: he agrees with the far-right that it is reasonable to violently restrict the movement of other people based on their national origin or their religion, and the existence of those people in their entirety is conflated with the threats of terrorism, violence, or other social ills.

Indeed, the Democrats have consistently dropped the ball in spite of their claimed support of immigrant rights in America. Only last year, the Democrats threw the DREAMers under the bus in their negotiations with Trump. Before that, Hillary Clinton unabashedly told CNN that she believed in deporting small children during the 2014 spike in immigration from Central American countries. In the eight years preceding Trump, the Obama Administration deported 3 million people — comparable to the numbers of people displaced by major armed conflicts. Obama and Clinton both voted to build a fence (though not a wall) in 2006. And of course, the mass crackdown against migrants that has become a fact of life for millions of people living within US borders began with measures imposed by Bill Clinton. And despite claiming outrage over Trump’s proposal to ban Muslims, it was a Democratic president who issued immigration restrictions against seven predominantly Muslim countries — that then became the targets for Trump’s Muslim ban.

In fairness to Booker, he has opposed each and every one of these moves as a public official, whether through letters to Obama or legislation to stop the worst abuses. But words, like legislative proposals likely to be defeated, are cheap — especially when they are not paired with principles.

Under successive Democratic administrations, we have watched immigrants suffer — and with the increase in their suffering, the bar has been lowered for what constitutes supporting them. As the climate for migrants in North America continues to change for the worse, we cannot trust Establishment Democrats to protect the weak and should not wait for them to sell out migrants here as they have done with refugees and migrants in and around Palestine.

About Amith Gupta

Amith Gupta is a recent graduate of the New York University School of Law, where he was an Institute for International Law and Justice Scholar. He is a Palestine solidarity activist.

Posted In:

39 Responses

The wall along the Mexican border is racist in intent, and keeps out people seeking a better life. The wall in Palestine is much worse, it keeps out Israel’s indigenous people, it’s racist in intent, and most of it’s outside Israel’s borders.

How racist is US immigration policy? Consider: In 2016, Mexicans accounted for approximately 26 percent of immigrants in the United States, making them by far the largest foreign-born group in the country. Indians were next, comprising close to 6 percent, followed by Chinese (including immigrants from Hong Kong but not Taiwan) with 5 percent, and Filipinos at 4 percent. Immigrants from El Salvador, Vietnam, and Cuba (about 3 percent each), and those from the Dominican Republic, South Korea, and Guatemala (2-2.5 percent each), rounded out the top ten. Together, these groups represented 58 percent of the U.S. immigrant population in 2016.

US immigration policy is certainly *less* racist than Israel’s (which is the lowest standard one could possibly have), but the fact that there are large numbers of non-white people living in the United States borders proves very little. Indeed, this is the same argument Israel has used when tokenizing the remaining Palestinian population.

It also, more importantly, does not factor in the number of people rejected when applying for immigration or the rate at which those rejections apply to other countries that are white.

Sadly, for Trump it all seems to depend on whether an immigrant is from a “s—-hole country” (e.g., Haiti) or an ‘a—hole country’ (e.g., Norway). The former are reviled, while the latter are enthusiastically welcomed.

Earlier this summer, as I was getting out of a movie hall at Angelika I spotted Corey Booker. A few people went up to talk to him and I considered doing so, but didn’t. Maybe he was there for a premier: I don’t know.

Someone who is intimately familiar with NJ politics once told me that it’s rumoured that Booker is deeply in the closet. It’s surely wishful thinking, but he could be in the closet about supporting Palestine too…. either way he should come out.

I strongly object to any attempt to conflate questions of immigration into the US and the Palestinian Right of Return.

As far as I can tell, no-one* has a right to migrate into the US. The US has the right to place restrictions onto immigration.

The Palestinians have a right to enter Palestine. They are natives who were driven out. Their plight is the result of a failure to place restrictions on immigration.

No good will come of trying to link the Palestinian issue to any other fashionable cause.

(*People who are refugees or descendants of refugees from the US, and who have no other citizenship, as well as people who have been improperly deprived of or denied US citizenship when entitled, would have a right of entry. There may be such people.)

Why does the US have some sort of sovereign “right” to restrict immigration over land that the US physically stole, while Israel doesn’t?

You say it’s different because Palestinians are indigenous — what about Mexicans and Latin Americans who had communities straddling the current US-Mexico border, or who were able to travel freely between present-day Mexico and former Mexico (including CA, TX, etc)?

Also, if you’re willing to make an exception only for Palestinians as indigenous people — are you saying that it is okay for Israel to ban *other* people who are *not* indigenous, like, say, Eritreans and Sudanese? Why should Israel have any authority over the land at all to make such a decision? And if you agree that it shouldn’t, then why does the US have that right?

The very right of a sovereign to restrict immigration goes to the heart of colonialism. Unless you believe that the US had the “right” to displace Natives in the first place, it would not make sense to defer to their “right” to then subsequently restrict who comes in or out. Same with Israel.

Hello, again. We’ve been through this before, when you were using a different name. (Bont Eastlake?) Thanks to the wonderful improvements that are afflicting the site, I can’t track you down in the archives.

I’ll stick to two main points.

1. Your arguments about communities which straddle borders and cutting people off from their traditional lands apply to nearly every border in the world. They are arguments for a world without borders, in which anyone can move anywhere.

2. For those who accept the idea of borders, the establishment of the Israeli border (wherever it might be) is not the key point. The evil of Israel is what happened during and after the establishment of the border. That is, the ethnic cleansing and the discrimination inside Israel.

Hi, I have no idea who BontEastlake is and this is my only MW username.

1) They are arguments that the distinction between indigeneity and migrants do not make sense except in reference to where the foreign colonial power places the border. They also ignore that one of the pre-existing rights of indigenous peoples was to move across the borders that were later imposed upon them by colonizers without hassle. Suggesting that the border is only an issue of immigration and not indigenous rights makes zero sense, particularly when the border itself keeps moving further and further out, turning “foreigners” into “indigenous people under occupation”. You cannot define indigeneity without reference to the land itself, and the borders that are imposed by the colonial power divide that land in a way that would not have been possible without their colonization.

2) If the ethnic cleansing that created the border is the problem, then it follows that it is an illegitimate border that should not have any force. Consider the demonstrations at the Israel-Lebanon border, where millions of Palestinians descended on their ancestral lands. Do you think that, if some of those people were actually just Lebanese supporters of Palestinians (i.e. not Palestinians), or for that matter, European and American allies or journalists or whatever, that Israel has some sort of “right” to stop *those* people (i.e. the non-Palestinians)? If so, where did they get this authority other than in the process of ethnically cleansing the land?

1. Just about whenever and wherever a border is set up, the local people who previously could move freely in the territory will face bureaucratic difficulties thereafter. This applies to the borders between Laos and Vietnam, Netherlands and Belgium, China and Mongolia, Sweden and Norway, Iraq and Syria, Czech Rep. and Slovakia,and most other borders in the world. Your argument is an argument against borders in general.

2. The Israeli border is illegitimate because the whole state is (morally) illegitimate.

3. The Palestinians have a right to enter Palestine. The Lebanese supporters do not have that right. That does not imply that the Israelis have a right to stop them.

The two situations are different.
All walls are NOT the same. The Berlin Wall was different from the Trump Wall is VERY different from the Israeli wall. Riding on “Wall” coattails in the fight for Pal justice will backfire.
IMO the movement for Palestinian rights will not be helped by association with the US immigration issue. This is already a hot-button issue, but the wrong buttons.
The discussion gets derailed into US immigration issues.
Palestinians are not migrants or immigrants. They are the owners of the land. They are the “Native Americans” of Israel.
Focus must remain on Palestinians’ right to return TO THEIR OWN LAND!!!
The American public is ill-informed enough already. Conflating the Pal issue with US border issues does not help educate Americans as to Israel’s crimes. Actually, this conflation works in Israel’s favor.

It’s a big wall smack in the middle of illegally seized Palestinian land on either side. Only difference is the date of seizure. Using Zionist and colonial terminology, “as is”, only retransmits propaganda.

Where do “Native Americans” end and “Mexicans” begin? The reality is that all of the land in question belonged to indigenous communities and most Mexican and Latin-American communities are of mixed heritage between indigenous peoples, Europeans, and others. It does not make sense to differentiate between “indigenous” and “immigrant” based on a border imposed by the colonizer. This would mean that if the United States had conquered even more land from Mexico and instead placed the US-Mexico border at the current Mexico-El Salvador border, then Mexicans would overnight have been transformed into “Natives” rather than “immigrants”.

And the comparison is totally accurate with Palestine. Israel imposed a border on Palestine and thereby cut off Palestinians from their own land, thereby turning them into “outsiders” and immigrants. Likewise, prior to Israel’s creation, there was fluidity in movement among people and it was normal for Palestinians, Syrians, and others to travel back and forth — just like before the United States imposed its border.

This would mean that if the United States had conquered even more land from Mexico and instead placed the US-Mexico border at the current Mexico-El Salvador border, then Mexicans would overnight have been transformed into “Natives” rather than “immigrants”.

And the comparison is totally accurate with Palestine.

not sure about that. i’m not that up on the history of our border but i think what is now texas was originally colonized by spain handling out land grants. and then US settlers came in at some point, but texas was only part of mexico for about 25 years before it became a US state, because of spain. unlike califonia, i am not sure there were many mexicans there before the spanish drove their colonists up into texas and new mexico. and those original colonists were not “natives”, they were immigrants. and when texas and new mexico became US states those (primarily spanish) colonists remained and became US citizens (i think, although i could be wrong) the only indigenous people there were native americans. and when it became a state, did the US kick out the indigenous people (that were still alive) or continue killing them, as the spanish had been doing? i don’t think the population of texas when it became a US state is as clear cut as the indigenous people of palestine. but then, i could be wrong!

The area now covered by Texas was occupied by three major indigenous cultures, which had reached their developmental peak before the arrival of European explorers and are known from archaeology. These are:[3]

the Pueblo from the upper Rio Grande region, centered west of Texas;

the Mound Builders of the Mississippi culture which spread throughout the Mississippi Valley and its tributaries;

the Caddo nation are considered among its descendants;

the civilizations of Mesoamerica, centered south of Texas. The influence of Teotihuacan in northern Mexico peaked around AD 500 and declined over the 8th to 10th centuries.

iow, i don’t think there were many mexicans in texas before the spanish colonizers arrived. the only people indigenous to texas are native americans.

Also, strategy-wise, it would be a MASSIVE blunder of epic proportions to not point out the obvious analogy given that most of the communities where there is sympathy for Palestine already sympathize with victims of border violence and oppose unjust restrictions on movement. Not to mention immigrant groups themselves which are sympathetic to Palestine for precisely this reason, and who are increasingly showing support and solidarity (AOC, for example).

I agree that pairing Palestine with every cause that comes up is unhelpful. But this one has direct analogies. It is totally helpful.

I, too, am talking strategy-wise.
Just look at how many comment words on this thread are now about US immigration issues instead of about Pal issues, which are not “immigration” issues.
I agree that one can have a long and interesting and illuminating discussion of the parallels and distinctions between the two situations, here at Mondoweiss.

But I disagree that this is a successful strategy for advancingn the rights of Palestinians by educating Americans on the history of Israel’s seizure of Pal lands and specifically the post-1967 occupation and Gaza genocide.

I believe the crucial target population that must be persuaded start to speak up loudly and to withdraw support from Israel is American Jews. This audience must be forced to open its eyes to Israel’s crimes against humanity and its ongoing violations of both international law and UN resolutions.

I accept the many arguments regarding parallels with the US colonizing project, but I don’t think this line of argument is a strong political strategy. Again, it diverts the discussion into US history and immigration. I don’t think Palestine has time for this education re US history to take place hold among voters and decision makers in t his country, and hten to be, in effect, transferred to the Palstinian issue.

I think the Pal issue must be thrust on the public’s consciousness in it own terms: the Jewish State of Israel is an apartheid, racist state that is holding millions of people in an open-air concentration camp and genociding them. Not only their land but their water is being stolen. Meanwhile, American and other Jews are given housing for free on stolen lands. And the American taxpayer is paying for a lot of this, while there is a housing crisis in the USA and virtually nothing is spent on public housing here in the USA.

I believe the crucial target population that must be persuaded start to speak up loudly and to withdraw support from Israel is American Jews.

there are a lot of young jewish americans speaking out, but i don’t agree with your premise. ill compare it to the idea of focusing flipping votes from one party to the other vs flipping non voters to voters. jews are a fairly miniscule segment of our population tho they have a lot of influence, but we are not going to get a movement of americans without the vast majority of americans — and the vast majority of americans do not have as much invested (emotionally and otherwise) in palestine/israel. it’s far easier to find someone who doesn’t know much, inform them, and get them to support palestine. if you rely on a large portion of the jewish population to flip, you could be waiting forever, or, just waiting for the next generation to grow up.

i think there’s a lot of opportunity right now to educate people about palestine because israel is becoming more and more associated w/trump and extreme right wing than any time in our history. of course, there will always be people out there trying to influence (or flip) jews. but i think the people most influential to jews, are other jews. flipping the evangelicals would be of more value. christians in general, and a lot of them are already there. lots of minorities are already there. personally, i would target jews last. we need the masses for a movement. we need to tell politicians if they vote with aipac they are not getting our vote. and we need the dem party to understand that, that they can’t count on us if they keep supporting apartheid.

i don’t see any contradiction in advocating for immigrants and palestine at the same time. people understand what walls do, they keep people out. israel continues to colonize palestine and refusing to let palestinians go home. that’s not complicated.

First you tell us not to touch the immigration issue because it’s a “hot-button” issue — as though Palestine isn’t — but now you tell us not to mind immigrant communities with a direct association with Palestine and focus on Jews — the community that has a direct association with *Israel*?

This is absurd. There are conscientious people in every community who have “opened their eyes” but it is beyond naive to think our energy should be spent on people who already have an emotional (if not political or financial) commitment to Israel. In contrast, immigrant communities (including Muslims) have obvious reasons to feel as though their struggles are tied.

It’s also bizarre to me how much people on this forum do not realize the way Mexicans view the history of the western United States. Mexicans see that as historical Mexican Territory — because that’s what it was. The ties to Palestine are obvious.

“This is already a hot-button issue, but the wrong buttons.
The discussion gets derailed into US immigration issues.”

And, still in terms of strategy, conflating the issues runs the risk of alienating those people who support strong restrictions on immigration, but who would otherwise support the rights of the Palestinians.
Such people might be misled into thinking that the arguments against US immigration policy also apply as arguments against the ROR.

(You say “All walls are NOT the same.” Since some walls are the same, this is not true.. I think you meant “Not all walls are the same.”)

RoHa: …in terms of strategy, conflating the issues [U.S.immigration/Palestinian RoR] runs the risk of alienating those people who support strong restrictions on immigration, but who would otherwise support the rights of the Palestinians.
——————————–

Exactly. Conflating the issues would be a massive own goal.

August 8, 2018, 11:47 pm

“And, still in terms of strategy, conflating the issues runs the risk of alienating those people who support strong restrictions on immigration, but who would otherwise support the rights of the Palestinians.
Such people might be misled into thinking that the arguments against US immigration policy also apply as arguments against the ROR.”

This is my basic point.
I agree that Christians/Evangelicals are also a large target group for conversion. But I think if American Jews started rejecting the Zionist narrative, it would have far greater knock-on effects, becasue Jews do control the media. Major defections by large numbers of Jews would have a greater effect on our policies toward Israel, and on Israel itself, than defections of Christians. The Zionists will happily throw the Christains overboard, but they cannot absorb major defections by American Jews. I think.

Not all walls are the same.
Or, all walls are different. Or, all walls are not identical.
Anyhow, you get my point, I think! Walls are built in varying political contexts. The separations they effect arise from different aims. Sure, they all divide people, or keep some people out, or keep some people in. Actually, those can be pretty big differences. Distinctions are, IMO, as important as similarities (physical presence of a wall).

I think if American Jews started rejecting the Zionist narrative, it would have far greater knock-on effects…. Major defections by large numbers of Jews would have a greater effect on our policies toward Israel

that sort of goes without saying. just like major defections by large numbers of conservative would have a big impact on the gop. but how are you going to pull that off?

“The world court yesterday branded Israel’s vast concrete and steel barrier through the West Bank a political not a security measure, and a de facto land grab. The judges told Israel to tear it down and compensate the victims.

The International Court of Justice at The Hague said signatories to the Geneva convention, such as Britain and the US, are obliged to ensure Israel upholds the ruling.

It condemned what it described as the widespread confiscation and destruction of Palestinian property, and the disruption of the lives of thousands of protected civilians, caused by construction of what Israel calls the “anti-terror fence”. It also called on the UN to consider measures against Israel. Sanctions appear unlikely in the face of US opposition, but Palestinians hailed the ruling as a landmark judgment that could mobilise international opinion.

“Israel is under an obligation to terminate its breaches of international law; it is under an obligation to cease forthwith the works of construction of the wall being built in the occupied Palestinian territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, to dismantle forthwith the structure therein situated,” the court ruled.”https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jul/10/israel3

Booker seems to support the violation of international law and human rights.

My last comment was not posted. No idea why.
In it I pointed out that Netanyahu’s Tweet (embedded abovep regarding the similarities between their wall and Trump’s pretty much makes the argument. If conflating the Israeli wall with American immigration issues is good for Netanyahu, it can’t be good for Palestinians..

Roha: “Point of logic:
“All walls are not the same” is a grammatically strained way of saying “No walls are the same”.

“Not all walls are the same” allows the possibility that some walls are the same, without asserting that the possibility is actualized.”

You are correct in your analysis.
However, there was a rhetorical purpose in my use of the phrase “all walls,” since the premise of much thinking about walls whose purpose is to keep people in or our or separated (as opposed to walls that have other purposes) does seem to be that “all walls are the same”—namely, morally reprehensible (which maybe they are), and that this perception should be the basis for actual campaigns (a proposition I disagree with, or with which I disagree, in case ending a sentence/clause/phrase with a prep is a no-no for you :-)). NB: no hyphen after adverbs ending in -ly.

Support Mondoweiss’s independent journalism today

Mondoweiss brings you the news that no one else will. Your tax-deductible donation enables us to deliver information, analysis and voices stifled elsewhere. Please give now to maintain and grow this unique resource.